Part 5

Now it is a question at least worth asking, whether we have not here indications of a greater disposition than we have commonly given our people credit for, to be moved by such things--by sacred song--by fair vestments--by processional movement--by festal decoration? whether we have not been foregoing hitherto, to our great loss, certain effective ways of influencing our people for good? whether there must not, after all, be less truth than has been commonly supposed in the received maxim, that Englishmen care nothing about these things, nor can be brought to care for them; that they have not in them, in short, the faculty of being affected by externals in religious matters; that the sober Saxon spirit loves, above all things, a simple and unadorned worship, and the like? The writer is not ashamed to confess that he has in time past shared in this estimate of his countrymen; but that experience has greatly shaken his confidence in the correctness of it. And he may, therefore, be accepted, perhaps, as a somewhat unprejudiced witness, when he testifies to so much as has come under his own notice as to the effect of the "ritual developments," so to call them, of which he has above spoken. He can bear witness, then, that with these accompaniments, the Services of the Sanctuary have become to many, manifestly, a pleasure and a delight; that these influences are found to touch and move, even to tears, those harder and more rugged natures which are accessible to scarce anything else; breaking even through the crust of formality or indifference which grows so commonly over the heart of middle age. Is it irreverent to think and believe that what these simple souls witness to, as their own experience in presence of a kind of ritual new to them, though familiar of old to their fathers, and to the Church throughout the world, is but an anticipation of what our great poet, Puritan though he was, has described as among the consolations of the blessed? That which our poor peasants gratefully find provided for them on the Church's days of festival, is no other, in its degree, than what, to the poet's thought, awaited his Lycidas "in the blest kingdoms meek of joy and love:"--

"There entertain him all the saints above, _In solemn troops and sweet societies, That sing, and, singing_, in their glory _move_, And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes."

It will be understood that the writer is not now engaged in advocating these particular practices as binding upon us, or even as capable of being introduced everywhere; but only pointing out that, in the acceptance and welcome with which this whole side of ritual action has been received, even in unlikely quarters, we have some indication of the probable effect on the general mind of other well-considered ritual restorations.

And if it be still contended that the more usual condition of the English mind is that which has been above described, viz. of preferring a religion which reaches them mainly through the ear, and appeals but little to the eye, I venture to suggest that--(granting this to be so)--if a given nation is wanting in one particular religious sense, that is the very reason why that sense should be carefully educated. If the Italian is over-sensuous, as it would probably be agreed that he is, in his religious constitution, he is the very person that needs for his improvement intellectual development. And just so, if the Englishman is, in religious matters, unsusceptible, comparatively, of æsthetic influences, the inference is, not that these should be carefully kept from him, but that he should, as he is able to bear, be subjected to them.

The bearing of what has now been said upon the restoration of the vestments and the like, is this. The most obvious objection to it is, that the rubric in question has been in abeyance for long years, or even centuries; and that this proves that it does not suit the genius of the English nation. I have shown, indeed, that, as appears from the history of the period in question,--and other evidence might be adduced,--the rubric has not been altogether dormant in times past. Still, the case for desuetude is a very strong one, no doubt; and there is but one thing that could possibly invalidate it, and that is, the existence of unmistakable indications that the revival would, notwithstanding the long abeyance of the rubric, meet some rising need or aspiration of the hour. If it does that, then the negative argument, that there is no place or call for the restoration,--that it is the mere galvanization of a dead thing, or, at best, the summoning of it back to a life which must be fugitive and evanescent, because there is not atmosphere for it to breathe,--is at once done away with.

* * * * *

But let us now briefly inquire what are the _positive_ recommendations, if any, of the eucharistic vestments which it is proposed to restore.

In the first place, then, it is alleged, that to provide for the Holy Eucharist special vestures _of any kind_, not only harmonizes with the transcendent superiority of the rite itself above all other kinds of worship, but is the proper correlative of much that has been doing of late years in the English Church. Is it consistent, it is asked, to give to chancel, and sacrarium, and altar, all the chastened richness and beauty of which they are capable, and yet to deny to the celebrant at the holy Rite all adornment beyond surplice and stole? Even if we had never possessed any distinct eucharistic vestments, we might well, it is said, as a matter of consistency, introduce them.

But next, let us ask, do these particular vestments possess any claim upon us, beyond the fact of their being different from the ordinary surplice, and of their being prescribed in the rubric? And here, certainly (when we come to inquire into their history) their wonderful antiquity, universality, and probable rationale, cannot but make a deep impression upon us. They have been so fully described in recent publications,[33] to which the reader can refer, that there is the less need to enter into particulars about them here. The most interesting circumstance hitherto brought to light respecting them, is this; that there is no reason for doubting that they are, as to their _form_, no other than the _every-day garments of the ancient world in East and West, such as they existed at the time of Our Lord_, and for many ages before. Mr. Skinner has proved this to demonstration. There was, 1st, the long and close "coat," "tunic," or "vesture," called from its colour (as a ministerial garment), the "alb;" 2nd, the broad "border" of this coat, often of the richest materials, which developed, ecclesiastically, into the "orarium" (probably from _ora_, a border) or "stole;" 3rd, the girdle, combining easily with the "stole;" 4th, the "garment" or "robe" (ecclesiastically the "casula" or "chasuble"), covering the tunic down to the knees, and so allowing the ends of the "border" (or "stole") to appear. "Such," says Mr. Skinner, "were the ordinary vestments in daily common use in East and West."[34] These would be, naturally, the garments in which, like our Lord himself, the Apostles and others would officiate at the Holy Eucharist, and then reverence would preserve them in subsequent ages. No other supposition can account for their universality, as ministering garments, throughout the world. And how wonderful the interest attaching to them, even were this all! How fitting that the Celebrant, the representative, however unworthily, of our Lord himself, in His most solemn Action, should be clad even as He was!

[33] See Palmer's 'Origines Liturgicæ,' vol. ii., Appendix; the 'Directorium Anglicanum;' Lee 'On Eucharistic Vestments;' and the Rev. Jas. Skinner's 'Plea for the Ritual' (Masters): but especially the last-named writer's most able dissertations in the 'Guardian' of Jan. 17 and Jan. 24, 1866; and the Dean of Westminster's speech in Convocation, Feb. 9, 1866.

[34] Compare the well-known passages, "If any man will take away thy _cloke_ (outer robe), let him have thy _coat_ (or tunic) also." "Ye pull off the _robe_ with the _garment_ from them that pass by securely."--Micah ii. 8. "His _garments_ ... and also his _coat_ ... without seam, woven from the top throughout." "The _cloke_ that I left at Troas ... bring with thee."

But this is _not_ all. There are circumstances which this rationale of the vestments, though correct as far as it goes, does not account for.

First, in the vestment-customs both of East and West there is recognition, though in different ways, of some covering for the _head_. In East and West a bonnet or mitre is worn by Bishops. In celebrating, in the West, a small garment called the "amice," _of fine white linen, with a very rich edge or fillet_, is first placed on the head of the Celebrant, and then removed to his shoulders, so that the _rich edge_ rests at first on the forehead, and then appears from under the alb and chasuble.[35] Now the prayer, with which this singular appendage is put on ("Place on my head, O Lord, the helmet of salvation"), proves that it represents a bonnet or head-covering.

[35] 'Directorium Anglicanum,' pp. 16, 21. "The amice is an oblong square of fine white linen, and is put on upon the cassock or priest's canonical dress. It is embroidered or 'apparelled' upon _one_ edge. In vesting, it is placed for a moment, like a veil, upon the crown of the head, and then spread upon the shoulders." "The _apparel_ of the amice _cannot be too rich_ in its ornamentation." _Amice_ is the Latin _amictus_--"the covering," referring to Psalm cxl. 7, "Thou hast covered my head in the day of battle."

Again, the fact that the _stole_ is not a mere border, but _detached_, both in East and West, from the tunic or alb, and in the West, rests on the _shoulders_, is singular. In the East it is a broad double stripe of costly silk, richly embroidered, hanging down in front of the wearer; and often[36] _adorned with gems and gold_; while in the West it is crossed[37] _on the breast_ in celebrating: and throughout the East and West extraordinary importance has from early times attached to it, it being worn in every sacred function.[38]

[36] See Neale, Introduction to 'History of Eastern Church,' vol. i. p. 308.

[37] The very ancient Syriac Liturgy of St. James has the loose stole, as in the West, and crossed too upon the breast.--_Renaud._ p. 15.

[38] "In all prayers, even in those recited at home preparatory to the public Office, the Epitrachelion (_i.e._ stole) is worn."--Neale, 'Eastern Church,' p. 313. And St. Dunstan's Canons, A.D. 979, order "That no priest ever come within the church door, or into his stall, without a stole."--Hook's 'Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury,' vol. i. p. 488.

Now there is but one way of accounting for these curious arrangements. It is, that, at a very early period, the course was adopted of assimilating the ministering vestments of the clergy--especially in celebrating--to those of the _Jewish High Priest_. This could with great facility be done, because these vestments themselves were only the usual Eastern dress, glorified and enriched, with some especial additions. There was (Exod. xxviii.), besides the ephod, which was a rich under-garment--1. The long "embroidered coat or tunic of fine linen" (v. 39). 2. The "curious girdle of the ephod," which appears to have girded in both ephod and tunic. 3. The singular combination of the _shoulder-pieces and breastplate_, which together formed one whole, and were among the richest and _most peculiar insignia_ of the High Priesthood: the names of the Twelve Tribes being engraven, in the costliest gems, both on the shoulder-pieces and breastplate, as a means of making "memorial" of the people, with especial power, before God (vv. 9-30). 4. The outer garment or "robe of the ephod" (v. 31), all of blue, of circular form, with a "hole in the top of it, in the midst thereof," to pass it over the head of the wearer; whereas the ordinary outer garments were square, and thrown loosely on. On the hem were pomegranates and golden bells alternating. 5. And lastly, the "mitre of _fine linen_" (v. 39), and upon it, on the forehead, the "plate of pure gold" (πέταλον), in virtue of which Aaron "bore," or did away with, through his ministerial sanctity, the imperfections of the people's offerings (v. 38).

Now here, at length, we have a _full_ account of the rationale of the Eucharistic vestments, and specially of those parts of them which differed from the ordinary clothing of early days. We see that the "border" of the ordinary tunic was therefore _detached_ from it, beautified with embroidery, and enriched with gems, because the Aaronic shoulder-pieces and breastplate were thus detached, and were so adorned. The Greek name for the stole is still, for priests, the "neck-garment," for bishops, the "shoulder-piece" (omophorion).

Again, the "bonnet or mitre," or its substitute, the "amice," is therefore of "fine linen," and has a peculiarly rich "fillet," and must be placed upon the head for a symbol, so as to bring the fillet upon the _forehead_, because of the wondrous power and significance of the Aaronic "plate of gold," similarly placed.

We cannot, in short, resist the conclusion that the Church did, at some very early period (as the universality of these things proves), assimilate the old simple vestments, of set purpose, to the richer and more significant Aaronic ones. And if we ask _how_ early this was done, the answer is, that the first beginnings of it were made even in the lifetime of the Apostles. For Eusebius cites Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (A.D. 198), as testifying of St. John at Ephesus, that "as a priest he wore the πέταλον, or plate of gold."[39] And Epiphanius[40] says the same of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem. Later (c. 320), Eusebius addresses the priests as "wearing the long garment, the crown, and the priestly robe."[41] The plate of gold, on a bonnet or mitre, is still used at celebration by the Patriarch of Alexandria.[42] And the Armenian Church, whose traditions, where they differ from those of the rest of the world, are generally of immense antiquity, actually has the _breastplate_,[43] only with the names of the Twelve Apostles, instead of those of the Twelve Tribes.

[39] Hist. Eccl. iii., 31: ὁς ἐγενήθη ἱερευς τὸ πέταλον πεφορεκώς.

[40] 'De Hæresi,' 78. The very ancient Clementine Liturgy has "exchanging his vestment for a gorgeous one;" αμπρὰν ἐσθῆτα μετενδύς.

[41] ποδήρη, στέφανον, στολήν.

[42] Neale, 'Eastern Church,' Introd., p. 313.

[43] Ibid., p. 307.

We now see, then, how it came to pass that the stole is what it is in East and West; why it is so highly symbolical of ministerial power; why made so rich; why crossed on the _breast_ in celebrating; why, with all its richness, put _under_ the chasuble: scil. because, like the Aaronic breastplate, it was a memorial "_before God_" of the preciousness of God's people, whom the priest bore, as he should bear still, on his shoulder and on his heart, in his ministry of labour and of love. We see, again, why the "apparel" of the "amice" is so rich, because anciently of gold; why placed on the forehead, the seat of thought, scil. that the priest may be mindful of his "ministry of reconciliation;" and why accompanied with a prayer for the "helmet of salvation."

And even the ordinary vestments, the surplice, and stole, and hood, derive a clear rationale and fitness from the same source. The _surplice_ (_superpellicium_), as Mr. Skinner teaches us,[44] is only the close tunic or "alb," so enlarged as conveniently to cover the _pellicium_, or coat of fur or skin which the clergy wore in the choir. The _stole_, crossed at celebration, loses its resemblance to the breastplate, and its allusion to the Cross, at the lower ministry of the Ordinary Office, being worn pendent. The _hood_ is the amice in simpler and less significant form, intended originally to be actually worn on the head, and still capable of being so; its varying form and colour only indicating the particular sodality to which the wearer belongs.

[44] Letter to the 'Guardian,' Jan. 24, 1866.

Of the cope it is needless to say more than that it is properly processional, though recognised in the English Church (as in the Armenian) for celebration, and for the clergy in the choir on high festivals.

It may be added that the English vestments differ sufficiently from those of foreign Churches to have a national character.

It thus appears that the Eucharistic vestments, and even our ordinary ones through them, are a link of a marvellously interesting kind between us and antiquity, even Apostolic antiquity; and between us and the whole Christian world. Nay, our vestments, like our Services, connect us with the old Mosaic Ordinances. They ought to be grave reasons indeed, which should induce us to raze them from our statute-book, whatever became of the question of their restoration to general use.

Of other usages now under debate, I would mention briefly--1. The position of the celebrant during the office; 2. The two lights on the altar; 3. Incense; 4. The mixed chalice; 5. The crucifix.

1. There is no real doubt whatever as to the intention of the English Church about the position of the celebrant in administering the Holy Communion.

In order to make the matter plain, it is to be observed, that the slab or surface of the Altar, or Holy Table--there is a wonderful _equableness_ in the use of the two terms by antiquity[45]--was always conceived of as divided into _three_ portions of about equal size. The central one, called the _media pars_, was exclusively used for actual celebration, and often had a slab of stone[46] let into it, called _mensa consecratoria_. The other portions were called the _latus sinistrum_ and _dextrum_, or _Septentrionale et Australe_.[47] These would be in English the "midst of the Altar," the "left or north side," and the "right or south side:" the term "side" being used with reference to the "middle portion." The most solemn parts of the rite, then, were performed "_at_ the middle" of the Table; the subordinate parts "_at_ the northern or southern portions." In all cases, "at" certainly meant with the face turned _eastwards_. Now, in the First Book of Edward VI., it was ordered that the very beginning of the Service should be said "afore the _midst_ of the altar;" _i.e._ before the "media pars." As to the rest of the Service, it was doubtless to be said in the ancient customary places: the old rule being, that all after the preparatory prayer to the end of the Epistle was said at the _south_ side. In the Second Book the order was, "the Priest standing _at_ the _North-side_ of the Table shall say the Lord's Prayer," &c. This could not possibly, in those days, be understood to mean anything else than _facing the left-hand, or northern portion of the Table_. The reason of the change to the "north-side" probably was, 1. That permission was now given to stop short on occasion of celebration; in which case it would hardly be seemly to stand at the centre or consecrating portion of the Table; and perhaps, 2. To avoid a change of position beyond the _two_ specified. But it was doubtless intended that the centre should still be used for actual consecration, even as it was in the First Book, though no order was given in either case, to that effect. The order for the "north-side" was only put in because it was a new arrangement. And it will be observed that the term used _is_ "the North-side:" apparently indicating that a special and well-known part of the Table is meant. The present most incorrect practice, of standing at the north _end_, probably arose from two causes,--first, the infrequency of celebrations, which caused the habit to be formed of standing somewhat northwards; while the old distinct conception of the position had passed away: secondly, from the practice--probably in use[48] of old in our Church--of placing the vessels and unconsecrated elements, if there was no credence-table, on the _non-consecrating_ part of the altar, where it was found convenient to keep them still when consecrating. It may be questioned whether it be not still correct, or allowable however, thus to make use of the less important parts of the Table to serve as a Credence, if none other is provided. But the consecration should always take place at the middle of the Holy Table.

[45] The Fathers generally prefer 'Altar,' the Liturgies 'Holy Table.'

[46] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, "pars _altaris_ in quâ tabula defixa est;" "pars media _mensæ vitæ_."

[47] Syriac Liturgy of St. James, Renaudot; the 'Ancient English and Communion Offices' (Maskell), where "cornu" is used. The Roman 'Ritus celebrandi Missam,' 4. 4; "Thurificat _aliud latus_ altaris."

[48] The Rubrics in the Syriac Liturgy of St. James seem plainly to contemplate that the vessels, &c., should be placed on the north or south side until consecration, since they are to be carried _from_ the altar round the chancel, and _then_ placed on the _media pars_ (Renaudot, p. 60, who _imagines_ a credence). And both in England and abroad, ancient credence-tables are very rare.

The position thus prescribed, by unbroken ancient rule, for consecration, is by no means unimportant. By it is signified and expressed the solemn oblation and sacrificial presentation made by the celebrant, after the example of Christ,--leading the people, and carrying them with him in the action. For the primitive view of the institution, recognised in every ancient Communion Service, is, that when Our Blessed Lord "took bread, and blessed, and brake it," He thereby, in a deep mystery, _presented_ before God, through the medium of the element which He had chosen, the Sacrifice of His Body. That Sacrifice was to be consummated, indeed, on the morrow; or by Jewish reckoning, at any rate, at a later hour on the same day. But it was already, in a mystery, and by the yielding up His Will, begun, and in operation. This is implied by the exact and expressive language of the Institution--"This is my Body which is _being_ given (διδόμενον) or broken (κλώμενον); my Blood which is being shed, for you." Hence, too, it was that He could say of the Bread and Wine--"This _is_ my Body, my Blood;" because these had, as being the medium through which they were offered, been mysteriously, as regards virtue or power, identified therewith.[49] And what the celebrant does, at any celebration, is to imitate, in his humble measure, and as Christ ordained, the action of Christ. In order to this it is important, and has ever been the custom of the Church, that he should stand at the midst of the Holy Table as one leading a common action for all. In the East he stands eastward of the Table, facing the people; in the West, westward of the Table, and looking away from them: in both cases alike he is "in the midst," offering for and with them.

[49] See on this subject, in Appendix A, a valuable comment of the Bishop of Exeter on 1 Cor. xi. 24, and St. Luke xxii. 19.

In some cathedrals, as Exeter, and at Westminster Abbey, the remains of the ancient practice are to be seen; the vessels being placed, the offerings of the clergy made, and the Confession said, at the middle of the Table.